I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.

What's worse, that crap's coming up on damn near every website nowadays.

No, I don't want to fill out your frickin' survey. Just let me get my frickin' cheat code, please, or let me take a closer look at the product I was going to buy from your website until you floated that crap all over the image.

But if it bothers you. Get out a calculator and do the math yourself. He uses a deficit of $1.3x10^12. That and what is in the headline is all the info you need to replicate the calculation.

(He assumes that the taxpayers did not even as much take a standard deduction, did not take a exemption, and did not write off anything--and just forked over 25% of everything to the feds. If you don't like that assumption, it will mean the jobs paid even more.)

The derp squad will be in here in a sec to try to pretend this is wrong, but the thing that needs to be focused on is this:

Never mind that there's a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn't work.

If taking away the deduction from the rich doesn't pay for this rate cut WHO WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE?

Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit. It's just too freakin' awesome to release to the filthy public.

Funny that all the teabaggers who complained about Obama promising "rainbows and unicorn farts" are now supporting Romney and his magic super-secret fix-all plan. The only thing they're consistent on is their hypocrisy.

Of course someone getting a new job -- especially as well paying as Romney's numbers imply -- will be dropped from the welfare rolls, food stamps, unemployment, etc. So lets assume each new job meant the federal government spent fifty thousand dollars less. (This way overestimates how much the dole gives out even if you consider the overhead.) This means that the new jobs would only average $383,333 a piece.

But if we assume people deducted stuff from their taxes, the calculation will have to go up depending on how much they are allowed to deduct.

But I've been reassured by the Fark Independents and the Romney campaign is that it will be revenue neutral because the economy will magically grow fast enough to help offset the loss in revenue from these tax cuts.

/Yes, I know this is a stupid thing to think but this is honestly the right-wing talking point about Romney's tax plan

MaudlinMutantMollusk:Diogenes: And of course, even if the math worked out, it's all predicated on things he cannot guarantee - like agreement from his own party and Congress as a whole.

Weren't you paying attention to Mitt last night? THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING FROM GASOLINE AND ELECTRICITY PRICES TO SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATING JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH!

/at least while someone besides him is in office

I love that he called high gas prices and the slow recovery "Obama's economy tax", so that he could say that all of Obama's taxes are what's to blame for the problems America is feeling today. Republicans have redefined tax to mean "anything you don't like."

But remember, he's not saying he's going to cut taxes for the rich, he's just cutting tax rates but they won't pay less in taxes but it will stimulate the economy.

Or, more realistically, let's say you could create 12 million jobs, Mr. Romney. And each job pays an average of $8,000 in federal income tax. You have now raised $96 billion per year, or about 7% of the federal deficit.

If you call yourself a budget hawk and you don't support cutting offense spending, you are sad joke.

But I've been reassured by the Fark Independents and the Romney campaign is that it will be revenue neutral because the economy will magically grow fast enough to help offset the loss in revenue from these tax cuts.

/Yes, I know this is a stupid thing to think but this is honestly the right-wing talking point about Romney's tax plan

I think Romney is banking on the fact that the economy has been projected to grow over the next several years regardless of who is president. And that nobody will hold him to anything he says.

I really want a $400K a year job. If I vote for Romney, I get one of those, right? And I'll be able to take advantage of those awesome tax loopholes that Mitt gets right? OH and I'll also be able to invest enough money in the next 30 years to have an IRA worth $100 mil when I retire, right?

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.

What's worse, that crap's coming up on damn near every website nowadays.

No, I don't want to fill out your frickin' survey. Just let me get my frickin' cheat code, please, or let me take a closer look at the product I was going to buy from your website until you floated that crap all over the image.

What's even worse is browsing fark at work on IE 7 and having it crash every few minutes due to some of the ads on this site. I don't have a choice in what browser I use :(

nevirus:Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

But I've been reassured by the Fark Independents and the Romney campaign is that it will be revenue neutral because the economy will magically grow fast enough to help offset the loss in revenue from these tax cuts.

/Yes, I know this is a stupid thing to think but this is honestly the right-wing talking point about Romney's tax plan

A budget that is revenue neutral compared to our previous year's budget will never reduce the deficit and will never balance the budget. We have been in a recession for a while now, remember? Romney is a cynical liar.

Corvus:nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Corvus:The derp squad will be in here in a sec to try to pretend this is wrong, but the thing that needs to be focused on is this:

Never mind that there's a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn't work.

If taking away the deduction from the rich doesn't pay for this rate cut WHO WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE?

The middle class, that's who!!!

No no no.

It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.